About your Search

20121201
20121231
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)
. supervisor farrell. >> supervisor farrell: thank you, madam clerk. colleagues, i have two items today. the first is a resolution that i'm introducing along with president chiu and i want to thank him for his cosponsorship urging the national park service to cease efforts to locate the alcatraz ferry service at fort on workingo'ég8çu)u$ the port to confine continued service at the port of san francisco. as a bit of background on june 2012 of this past year mps began pjpublic scoping process establish a long term ferry service between san francisco waterfront and alcatraz island. they're also evaluating possible fer y service to sauc sausalitod are looking at three sites at the port of san francisco. piers 31 1/2ened have operated on the port of san francisco property for the past few decades. currently over 1.4 million people visit alcatraz island each year from their existing site at fisherman's wharf. fisherman's wharf is a bustling commercial district with restaurants, gift shops, over 3,000 hotel rooms and tourist attractions well served by public transportation. contrast that to
't we recall supervisor olague's item which is item 16. madam clerk, did you call that item? >> clerk calvillo: yes, mr. president. it is now on the floor. >> president chiu: supervisor olague. >> supervisor olague: there were a few -- this is introduced a couple of times, and then we continued it because there were some issues that were outstanding, and so i'll just go ahead and mention how some of those were resolved. the first thing, the issue of defining when planning staff reports are required to include the dashboard has basically been settled. so the changes are on page 4, line 24. and it mentions they will outline staff reports to the planning commission historic preservation commission and the board of supervisors so that's kind of stated there, on all proposed projects, it mentions it in detail. also, there was this -- the big dispute was really about the naming -- or defining of housing above 120% or from 120 to dj), . some -- i believe that it's the planning department, i might be wrong, that defines it as middle income housing, but it's the -- what do you call it -- the m
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)